Good to see that LWN is writing about it, since they wrote about the ban in the first place.

> In the past, suspensions of Python core developers have effectively been permanent because the recipients of the punishment chose not to return.

A very good point. Although I don't think Peters is the sort to make that choice (even if he's stood up for others who have).

>One of those other threads was started on November 21 by Marc-André Lemburg to discuss moving enforcement of the CoC away from the SC.

I think it's a bad idea, for reasons that Chris McDonough has elucidated at least as well as I could hope to (https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/ban-transparency-from-...). Mr. Lemburg is one of the "old guard", so I'm a bit disappointed.

The SC should be empowered to enforce CoC as regards core development as it sees fit - and Discourse forum moderators as they see fit, and PyCon organizers as they see fit, etc. - each as regards their respective spaces and nowhere else. There should not be a separate "work group" for this, especially not an unelected, unaccountable one which is for some reason taken seriously by everyone else - even when they make absurd allegations such as the ones against Mr. Peters.

> Warsaw revealed that he had abstained from the vote on the suspension, in part because he did not feel he could be unbiased; similarly, CoC WG members Brett Cannon and Łukasz Langa abstained from the vote to recommend the suspension to the SC.

Credit where it's due, I suppose.

> Hammond's reply sums up some of the frustration that is being felt: ... So yes, we should continue to discuss this - but in my opinion, the onus is now on the SC to directly address some of the responses made by these individuals.

It should be the WG's responsibility, since they're the ones whose unevidenced allegations are being challenged.

But yes, I've been reading the corresponding threads, and - I don't know that the term "Kafkaesque" can be stretched to cover stonewalling, but it still feels like that. Supposedly the excuse for silence has been that there was no explicit, properly made request for clarification, despite all the forum activity pointing out layers of refusal to be transparent about previous refusals to be transparent.

> SC replying either publicly or to Peters directly ""would be a waste of our precious volunteer time as it was guaranteed to be taken out of context and satisfy nobody""

At this point, I can hardly fathom a context that would justify their actions anyway.

> Langa, who chairs the CoC WG

And also moderates the forum.

And also commented on a PyPI issue (https://github.com/pypi/support/issues/2771) directly related to the problem that brought me to the forum in the first place (https://discuss.python.org/t/_/25089), the day he banned me. (A strange coincidence, but I'm glad the problem is resolved now.)

> What seems to be lacking, however, is what the community itself should learn from this incident about CoC enforcement, procedures, and reporting, especially as it relates to core developers. Maybe that will come in time, as well.

One of the most important things in my view: the only purpose of secrecy in these processes is to protect the identity of a reporter. If a violation is claimed on the basis of publicly visible conduct, it is at least unacceptable to refuse to identify the specific conduct unless it was clearly targeted at a specific user; and there must be a clear explanation of how the conduct plausibly causes offense passing a reasonable-person test; and it must be readily apparent to third parties that the conduct is being fairly represented and charitably interpreted.

(There's also a lot I could say here about how the WG has approached the topic of neurodiversity, but it's better if I save that for a blog post - which likely won't be the next PSF-related post.)